When did the split take place between to pope of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople.
It's confusing because if christian Rome was a Byzantine possession why would Rome have a people because Popes are Catholic.
Did the Pope in Rome and patriarch in Constantinople both belong to the same entity and then split?
Or were they completely different things from the start..
This is all so confusing...
There were arguments over theology and the role of the Patriarchs stemming from roman times but technically they were one church until the Schism of 1054 when the Patriarch and the popes representative mutually excommunicated each other.
there were several attempts to patch things up but the issue of the role of the Pope and the filioque proved to controversial to overcome.
I would add that from the Catholic perspective they are still one church with factions not in full communion. The Orthodox take a dimmer view at least on the whole.
Please, restart this thread with a coherent question
Why was there simultaneously a Pope and a Patriarch?
What's the difference between the two roles?
They were completely different things from the start. The early Christian church didn't have any supreme head, but authority was centered on the main episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. As Constantinople became the capital of the eastern empire, it too became an important see; so did Jerusalem once the empire was wholly Christianized. This five seats were by the 7th century AD recognized in Byzantine law as a "pentarchy" which was supposed to have authority over the whole church. However, unlike the other four sees, the see of Rome was not under firm control of the emperor in Constantinople. Shortly after this legal recognition was granted, Islamic conquerors took Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, leaving only Rome and Constantinople in Christian hands. The bishops of Rome were increasingly unwilling to acknowledge the authority of the bishops and emperors of Constantinople over a wide variety of theological and political issues, culminating in the schism of 1054.
tl;dr the pope and patriach were originally just two of the five most important bishops in the Roman Empire. As the Empire contracted in the early middle ages they became the only two left, and successive emperors were unsuccessful in maintaining authority over Rome, which eventually led to the Roman bishops telling them to go fuck themselves and proclaiming the bishop of Rome the supreme authority of the church.
Basically the early church was divided into Patriarchies. As the church evolved debates arose over which patriarchies were the most important. Rome and its supporters argued that the Patriach of Rome was the most important. The title pope comes from the latin Pontifex Maximus: the head of the roman state religion. in other words the title is a claim to power.
People in the east disagreed and while church councils acknowledged papal primacy they disagreed over what that meant. Over time the papacy got more and more powerful until it us basically in control of western Europe. But in the east they only saw the pope as the first among equals, when these ideas collided they ending up spiting the church
>the pope looks like a jew
>the patriarch looks like an arab
To me they look Roman and Greek respectively, tbqh.
thank you for posting a concise lucid and historical description, you are what this board needs more of
Mostly, but not entirely true. The only real point of contention I have to make is that the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria never went away, and there are still Patriarchs of these places to this day.
Pic related is the current Patriarch of Jerusalem.
>He doesn't know Southern Italians and Askenazi are nearly indistinguishable genetically
hmmm it's a bit more complicated than that
most of the christians in egypt follow the coptic pope, who is not in comunion with either rome or constantinople, the greek patriarch is not as popular
in Antioch it's the worst, there are 5 or more different churches claiming the throne
one is native syriac in comunion with the coptic pope
one is syriac but uniat and in comunion with rome
one is greek in comunion with constantinople
one is greek but uniat and in comunion with rome
and i think there are a few other divergent ones that i know nothing about
so the roman catholics are a bit idiotic here with having two different competing churches claiming a single throne as part of catholicism
Jerusalem i believe is mostly in the hands of the Constantinople communion, with a smaller Roman catholic presence from crusader times
>The early Christian church didn't have any supreme head,
>Who is Jesus.
You know the pope and some patriarch named Krill iirc met just last year, yes?
The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are both apostate cults that God will destroy.
At least half of the Christians in Syria follow the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, IIRC, with the Syriac Patriarch being the next largest.
that's pretty cool, i din't know that, the middle eastern christian question is very confusing for me, there are just too many different groups and the fact they're ruled by muslims makes it even harder to find the most legitimate one
>The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are both apostate cults that God will destroy.
apostates from who?
>so the roman catholics are a bit idiotic here with having two different competing churches claiming a single throne as part of catholicism
Not necessarily. The Church holds that churches with other rites (Greek rite, Syriac rite, etc.) can be in communion with them as long as they acknowledge Papal primacy. So, those are the heads of those respective churches, yet acknowledge that the Pope is the highest of all bishops.
yeah that much is obvious
seems like the RC doesn't care about theology, only about expansion
they'd probably accept the angicans too with their woman bishops and gay marriage as long as they accept the pope
Christianity.
This kills the united Christendom
Which they do to their shame.
but they are christianity, there is no other christianity...
Although you would think the holiest sites in Christianity are peaceful and tranquil havens of worship, they are actually a cesspit of fighting (sometimes even physical riots and melees between the monks), as each denomination really, really hates the others. After visiting many holy shrines and listening to the various banter the monks from all sides had, these seem to be the general opinions about the various sides:
>Greek Orthodox
They own the lion's share of the land, and as such are universally hated. They are viewed as being extremely corrupt and land and power hungry, constantly being in bed with the ruling authorities (not so much the Israelis, because Israel really wants their land, but when Muslims were ruling the Greeks were deepthroating Sheikh and Sultan cock at porno levels) and would crucify Jesus himself if it meant more land, power and influence for them. Most of their land was obtained through corrupt backdoor deals with the Muslims.
>Russian Orthodox
Even more corrupt than the Greeks, but no one really gives a shit because they own very little and don't really bother anyone else. There is some jealousy though because only the Catholics are superior to them at raking in tourist money.
>Catholic
Hated because they are constantly trying to Latinize anything and everything that they come into contact with. Even more hated however because they simply can't into the concept of other Christian denominations, they absolutely believe that Catholics are the only true Christians and everyone else is heretical. Also much jealousy around them because they bring in by far the most tourist cash. All of their land was given to them as a gift to the European powers by the Muslims in order to keep them quiet, and as such everyone views them as European colonizers who have no right being in the Holy Land.
>Armenian Orthodox
The Muslims basically picked these guys at random to be the only Oriental Orthodox Church that would break through into the big leagues, for which reason they are hated by the other Orientals, and hated by everyone else because they're Orientals. All the Orientals are viewed as being ethnic secret clubs, and the Armenians exemplify this
>Copts
Hated because they're basically Arabs. Yes, I know they're not, but the stereotype really sticks.
>Ethiopian Orthodox
Hated because, well, niggers. They can't poo in loo, their chants sound like an asthmatic goat playing a harmonica, and they're piss-poor to the point that they got evicted from the Holy Sepulcher because they couldn't afford the taxes and now live in truly African-tier mud huts on the roof.
>Protestants
Hated because they are the sheer definition of high and mighty, they view themselves as intellectually superior and all of the Cathodox as sheeple. Also everyone thinks they're heretical as hell. Basically /r/atheism: The Christian denominations.
pure unadulterated autism
>muslims took the entire east because of this
>Things a cultist would say for $1,000, Alex!
you're not making any sense bud
They meet, and no longer hold each other as excommunicated, though some Orthodox do not like that the order was removed
Never the less they are not in communion and the Orthodox basically consider Catholics a heretical sect.
the Catholics think the orthodox need to accept the pope and would probably look the other way on all the other doctrinal differences, they would probably want a half hearted statement affirming the catechism but thats it.
>They can't both be cults! They're too big! They're too old!
Things idiots say.
Look deeper. Krill then went almost directly to Antarctica and blessed it as the perfect place for human habitation.
The Whore of Babylon is very busy uniting all religions into one religion; all roads lead to God; all religions contain a portion of the truth; we are all God's children; God's mercy is infinite.
Just watch.
Of all the patriarchs the one in Rome is the highest in the hierarchy
Language barriers, not doctrine
We Orthodox don't agree. The Catholics say that there's no difference, and we disagree.
poo in loo, their chants sound like an asthmatic goat playing a harmonica, and they're piss-poor to the point that they got evicted from the Holy Sepulcher because they couldn't afford the taxes and now live in truly African-tier mud huts on the roof.
So he's accepting all and if they still reject him it's their fault, nice
Greeks and Armenians are usually bros, but every year this autism takes place.
Greek and Armenian monks fight each other in Jerusalem so much, it's become a tradition. If you look it up, you'll see articles and videos dated from years ago going up consecutively. Happens literally every year.
Greeks have been present because of the Byzantine empire, but Armenia has always had a historical presence in Jerusalem as well, especially Cilicians during the crusades. In fact, Jerusalem has a jewish, muslim, and christian quarter, but the fourth is the Armenian quarter, and Greeks can take refuge there since they're treated better as fellow orthodox.
These fights get pretty bad but surprisingly their relations aren't damaged at all (Greece was the only country to really help out Armenia in their war against Azerbaijan). Looks like a bit of banter tbqh.
However, pic related, monks are truly the most autistic people.
I should add to this Early Christianities structure was based on urban centres, which the Western half of Rome had a lot less of. This naturally made the Bishop of Rome more influential over a wider territory than the east bishops, who were comparatively much closer to each other and in charge of smaller territories. Rome also asserted from the start it was a first-among-equals of the others. The contraction of the Empire certainly helped, but Rome always had a disagreement as to its superiority over the others.
False flag
the early church had 3 patriarchs. Rome, Antioch, Alexandria. Constantinople and Jerusalem were added later. Patriarchs each ruled over an autonomous part of the church with the pope of Rome being the supreme head and the final authority of the church receiving that authority from peter. the split happened relations worsened when bulgaria was converted and ethnic romanian vlachs were already latin catholics while the slavs became byzantine Catholics. Patriarch photios wanted complete patraichal authority over the romanian church and the pope disagreed which led to the 1rst schism of the 800s which ended with the death of photios(rome finally relented and the romanian church became byzantinized and had old church slavic as its liturgical language).
eventually an anti latin patriarch of Constantinople was elected in the 11th century called michael cerularius who broke an earlier agreement which stated that latin churches would be established in constantinople and byzantine monasteries and churches would be maintained in italy, and the patriarch closed down all the latin churches and stopped praying for the pope of rome in the liturgy. The pope told him to stop but the patriarch disagreed. So the pope sent a cardinal to constantinople excommunicating the patriarch from the church then the Patriarch excommunicated the pope with the backing of the emperor and against antiochene patriarch peter iii's wishes. The council of Florence tried to patch things up and return the non-chalcedonians, nestorians, and chalcedonian greek churches back to full unity but failed because of the turkish invasion of Constantinople and the installation of an anti union patriarch.
>Council of Florence
The Eastern sections most certainly disagreed that Rome had final authority over them, the Bishop in another metropolis like Alexandria certainly would not accept direct orders from Rome.
>certianly disagreed
source pls
If they did, then why did the Arian controversy go on for so long? Why did all the other theological disputes go on? It's pretty clear Rome couldn't enforce it's theology on the other Bishops with any success, and that only wider councils of the church settled disputes between the Bishops (like Nicea). Rome was either de facto or de jure not in control of them, and Rome was in de jure control than the councils should have been more straightforward than they were.
CAtholism and orthodoxy were the same church for nearly a millennia and are the same in most respects. It makes perfect since they would see about getting back together. They are not looking to unit with the Buddhists
The both still think the other is/was wrong